Of Interest

Record reporter Daniel Jin’s ’20 excellent article on the first diversity and equity forum of the year merits discussion. Today is Day 3.

Matthew Hennessy ’17 then provided an update on the Committee on Campus Space and Institutional History (CSIH). CSIH spent the spring semester of 2016 investigating the history of the Log mural and surveying students about the mural, he said. The committee concluded that the College should keep the mural but add written contextualization.

President Adam Falk praised CSIH for its work and stressed the importance of student engagement with complicated issues. Hennessy said this semester CSIH will continue to look into objects, spaces and names on campus that no longer align with the College’s current institutional beliefs.

1) The CSIH is one of the great wins at Williams in the last year. See our previous coverage here and here. I am still hopeful that readers will want us to spend a week on this topic . . . No takers so far!

2) Can’t we start calling this the “Merrill Committee?” That would be much catchier than CSIH.

3) The CSIH ought to tell us exactly which “objects, spaces and names on campus” they are looking at. Perhaps they are planning another open forum? We have tried (and failed!) to come up with issues that might enrage the student SJW crowd. Perhaps the Haystack Monument?

In the spring of 1806, Samuel J. Mills matriculated at Williams. The son of a Connecticut clergyman, Mills was eager to spread Christianity throughout the world.

One Saturday afternoon in August 1806, Mills and four other students gathered for one of their regularly scheduled prayer meetings. On this particular day, it is said that the skies opened up and the students sought refuge in the shelter of a large haystack. While gathered at the haystack, the students conceived of the idea to found an American missionary movement focused on spreading Christianity worldwide, particularly to the East.

Whoa! I just realized, after writing about Williams for 13 years, that “Mission Park” refers to the religious missions that these white male cisgendered Christians launched 200 years ago. Could be problematic!

engaged in missions in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys, in the Southwest United States, and in New Orleans. He influenced the founding of the American Bible Society and the United Foreign Missionary Society before he died in 1818 while returning from a short-term mission trip to Africa with the American Colonization Society.

1) We have a question of empirical fact: Which “objects, spaces and names on campus” is the CSIH considering? If you know the answer to that question, please tell us!

2) Given that we don’t know the answer, we are doing our best, here and elsewhere, to guess what the CSIH might be considering. One guess is “Mission Park.” Another is “Mills House.” Do you think those are bad guesses? Do you have better ones?

3) The best framework for guessing, I think, is to try to figure out which “issues that might enrage the student SJW crowd.” Is that a bad framework? It certainly would have predicted complaints against any artwork portraying Native Americans in a problematic fashion. Do you have a better framework?

Using the term “SJW” is enough to be a little bit of a troll, but this isn’t the worst of DDF’s trolling.

Isn’t there a statue of a soldier somewhere? Maybe an entire chapel dedicated to soldiers? Were they engaged in furthering western imperialism like Eph himself? I can imagine that each of those might be considered potentially problematic in some way now or in the future. E.g., it’s been reported that the real dangers of communism are downplayed in the updated AP history curriculum.

I’m convinced that there are important issues at play here and this committee has the opportunity to do good work in fostering dialogue about history, even if it seems capricious to persons of privilege.

People have a right to know what is being considered for censorship. These monuments and murals have significance beyond the school. The soldier monument is important to local veterans groups, who keep fresh flags next to it. It is a war memorial that honors those fallen in the Civil War.

Persons of privilege? Like people who served in war? Like people who died in war? That is a privilege most people would rather avoid.

I am sure that local churches have an opinion on mission and Haystack.

These are highly visible historic artifacts. The log mural depicted not just two important figures for the college- Williams and Hendrick were also instrumental in founding Williamstown. If you believe in speech, this kind of thing is done with transparency.

The rest of the banter about this is not productive. Keep the focus where it belongs, which should be the inclusion of people in this dialogue. That is a decision that rests with the college administration- and no one else.

I agree with anon-liberal. However, in order to foster a dialogue about history, you have to include people in what you are considering. Productive debate and speech requires transparency.

Secrecy in this regard suppresses speech. Will there be some obnoxious banter if we find out that the soldier monument is up for consideration to be covered or moved? You bet. Some negative press? Of course. You will probably also get respectful engagement from American Legion Post 152 and the Masons.

Yes, there will be some harsh rhetoric. There will also be constructive dialogue.

If you scrutinize religion and veterans symbols of war- you should anticipate some blowback. That’s ok. The point is to have a discussion about this kind of thing- or no?

@PTC
Thanks for bringing up an important point—the colleges historical monuments are part of something greater than those who are in campus right now, and that includes the local community.

One can hope that the committee will promote a balanced dialogue, even if it becomes uncomfortable for all involved. I also think going through all potentially problematic monuments is a worthy exercise (even if DDF, the person of privilege in my comment, made the suggestion in an over-the-top sarcastic way). Now that the process has started, it would be a shame for them to not take full advantage of the good opportunities present (and do a better job than Yale).

Can we really say that we are “better” than this today? Can we claim that this kind of globalization no longer lies within our core beliefs?

No.

I don’t think so. Think about where we are today as a nation, spreading “freedom” throughout the globe under the guise of thinly veiled political theology. The threat of the mushroom cloud, to be replaced by the salvation of nation building. The promise of free markets.

The mural of Williams and Hendrick could easily be replaced with a Russian or American special forces soldier on the ground working with natives in Iraq or Syria- right now.

We are not above these themes, no matter how hard we want to pretend to be. That includes institutions like Williams. In my mind, that is the important part of these discussions.

Exactly. Can one really put Williams in a box of “institutional beliefs?”

If you can, then what does that say about the fact that the school teaches people to participate heavily in free markets? Globalization? The spreading of Western ideals? War?

Once you place yourself on a pedestal and claim the moral high ground “as an institution” you better be able to defend your position as leader in American education. As a leader in Wall Street. As a leader of current globalization (which includes war).

I am not saying that the above is true, because I do not think you can place Williams a box…

But please, don’t involve yourself in World developmental economics and then claim that the themes of Haystack no longer exist today at Williams under different guises. That the atrocities of today are more justified than those of the past? That the good of today is superior to the good of the past?